judgesonmerit.org

Gordon L. Doerfer, president of the American Judicature Society (AJS), has issued a statement in response to the Wall Street Journal’s most recent attack on Merit Selection. In this statement, AJS sets the record straight about the composition of judicial nominating commissions and the history of success of state Merit Selection systems.

AJS points out that the Journal’s recent characterization of the Florida and Missouri nominating commissions as dominated by plaintiffs’ trial lawyers is wrong. In fact, lawyers of all types are involved in selecting or suggesting lawyer members of these commissions. AJS goes on to explain that a recent survey of corporate attorneys revealed that they rank state courts selected through Merit Selection uniformly higher than state courts selected by partisan elections. It is a myth that judicial nominating commissions are dominated by a particular constituency or segment of the bar.  In fact, most nominating commissions include several seats for nonlawyers.

The cornerstone of Merit Selection is the use of a nominating commission to screen and evaluate candidates. This is the special element lacking in both elective and purely appointive systems.

A blanket condemnation of judicial nominating commissions is irresponsible and misleading. It also demeans the work of the dedicated commissioners, all of whom serve without compensation, and calls into questions the judgment of the many governors of all political parties who rely upon them to nominate the best qualified judges.

Thanks, AJS, for setting the record straight about judicial nominating commissions.

An article in Wednesday’s St. Petersburg Times describes two judicial races where the campaign rhetoric is getting partisan - and personal - fast. While these races are supposed to be nonpartisan, personal attacks and statements about political leanings are raising eyebrows, as well as questions about how far candidates in these races can go when trying to sour voters’ opinions of their opponents.

When judges have to conduct (or endure) negative campaigns, politics becomes the focus. It discourages otherwise qualified candidates from running if they don’t have the connections and funds to run a strong political campaign. The message is clear. To be a judge, you also have to be a skilled politician.

Merit Selection relieves judicial candidates from the burden of campaigning. It lets judges be judges, by shifting the focus  back to each candidate’s abilities and qualifications. No plan for judicial selection can eliminate politics from the process, but we can prevent it from being a job requirement for a seat on the appellate bench in Pennsylvania.

Critics of Merit Selection like to conjure up visions of a shadowy cabal of lawyers, meeting in a smoke-filled room to decide who has the right political leanings to be a judge. In reality, the people who serve on judicial nominating commissions are usually thoughtful men and women, lawyers and nonlawyers, who view the task of recommending qualified judicial candidates as an important civic duty.

Florida’s Judicial Nominating Commission is preparing this week to interview 49 candidates for two vacancies on that state’s supreme court. In an article about the work involved, members of the commission talk about how much time and effort they invest in the process.

Commission Chair Bob Hackleman calls the job “a grave responsibility,” and stresses the “need to be thorough.” Commission member Arturo Alvarez gives this perspective:

I really believe in the merit-selection process. It’s much like sitting on a jury. We actually say to ourselves, ‘My God, this is an important thing.’ Me, as a trial lawyer, I know the power a single judge can have over things.

We’re glad that the members of the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission take their responsibilities so seriously. We hope their work goes smoothly, and we hope that critics of Merit Selection will think of them before being impugning the motives of men and women serving their states with pride.